Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Can he? Yes he can. Do I think he will? No, I don't think he will, but there are plentywho think he will. I think he's been too much. Remember, you're not picking him to have a good 8 or 10 Rounds, you are picking him to get through the season, and a decent Keeper level. I think even if he starts well, the wheels are eventually going to fall off, and everything he has been through, will catch up to him, and slow him down. I just think his base fitness must have diminished, but I could be proven wrong.
If you're sold, you don't need to ask me. Go with your own opinion. It would seem you are looking for confirmation that your opinion is valid. All I can say is, your opinion is valid, whether I agree with it, or not.
Asking me the same question, 3 times, in a 12 hour period, on the same day .........
If you're sold, you don't need to ask me. Go with your own opinion. It would seem you are looking for confirmation that your opinion is valid. All I can say is, your opinion is valid, whether I agree with it, or not.
Asking me the same question, 3 times, in a 12 hour period, on the same day .........
Sure it's plausible. I think too much has to fall into place, for it to be the only winning starting tactic, but I can envisage it is possible that's how the winner started. For people to say it with any surety, it would seem the only thing that would prove them right, would be if not only the Winner did it, but everyone in the top 10, and a decent chunk of the top 50 as well. I can't see that happening, but I can see the Winner starting a 3 Rookie Ruck, and I can also see the winner starting Gawndy.
Hey greetings Rows!
Hope you've been well!
I know I usually don't pick your brain until mid to late season however I'm getting some last minute cold feet regarding one player you will be super familiar with....Clayton Oliver. Might be a really silly question but do you think he is a "must have" as a starting pick?
He's been in all my team drafts this year mainly because I've been convinced by the talk of "ohhh this season you have to have durable players, his injury record is really good etc etc.". BUT I'm just looking at who Melb play in the first three rounds...Freo, Saints & GWS. This worries me as I think he'll get tagged by Saints (by Ross?) and then definitely by De Boar against GWS. I reckon he will probably average around 110 for the year but is it worth starting him over players like Steele, Merrett, Fyfe or Jelly in terms of starting picks?
Reason I'm asking is because if I can save another 30-40k downgrading Oliver, I can then upgrade Dow (who I'm not convinced about) to J.Clark. I know picking Clark is a big risk due to the Chris Scott factor but I don't want to miss out in the case that it does turn out to be a good pick and he goes on to make 100-150k more and can then be used as a stepping stone.
Anyways, wish you the best of luck in the upcoming season! 💪
No doubt we'll be in touch throughout
Cheers!
Hope you've been well!
I know I usually don't pick your brain until mid to late season however I'm getting some last minute cold feet regarding one player you will be super familiar with....Clayton Oliver. Might be a really silly question but do you think he is a "must have" as a starting pick?
He's been in all my team drafts this year mainly because I've been convinced by the talk of "ohhh this season you have to have durable players, his injury record is really good etc etc.". BUT I'm just looking at who Melb play in the first three rounds...Freo, Saints & GWS. This worries me as I think he'll get tagged by Saints (by Ross?) and then definitely by De Boar against GWS. I reckon he will probably average around 110 for the year but is it worth starting him over players like Steele, Merrett, Fyfe or Jelly in terms of starting picks?
Reason I'm asking is because if I can save another 30-40k downgrading Oliver, I can then upgrade Dow (who I'm not convinced about) to J.Clark. I know picking Clark is a big risk due to the Chris Scott factor but I don't want to miss out in the case that it does turn out to be a good pick and he goes on to make 100-150k more and can then be used as a stepping stone.
Anyways, wish you the best of luck in the upcoming season! 💪
No doubt we'll be in touch throughout
Cheers!
I'm well thanks, and I hope you are too.
Oliver is not a must have. I actually don't think any player is looking a must have right now.
What he obviously brings to the table, is 4 consecutive seasons of Premium scoring, without missing a game!!! There's not many that can say that, and any of the downgrade targets, that will net you your required $30-$40k, definitely can't say that!
If you believe you can find a 20/110 player, in your budget, and that Clark is a much better pick than Dow, then you just do it. If you think Clark is say a 60% chance of being a Keeper (I don't, I think he's less than 10-15%), then just do it.
Otherwise, don't swap a Prem you are confident in, to one of lesser confidence, to improve a Cash Cow/Stepping Stone. After all, the job of those guys is to get you the Prems you want anyway!!!!
Good luck.
This is interesting and something I've thought of lately as well - that barring rookies, there's no real 'must have' this year, certainly compared to other seasons.
The closest I can see is probably Dangerfield and Laird (and Ziebell if you count him), but certainly not the Locks we've seen in seasons past, and are unlikely to kill anyone's season by not having them.
Makes for some interesting variance.
The closest I can see is probably Dangerfield and Laird (and Ziebell if you count him), but certainly not the Locks we've seen in seasons past, and are unlikely to kill anyone's season by not having them.
Makes for some interesting variance.
I was going to say similar; a couple of rookies seem like 'must-haves' to me, though none of the premiums. There are a lot of players that I think represent good value (ie Cripps) however there are also valid arguments against. Most people promoting 'must-haves' are likely only trying to validate their own opinions/selections.
Tend to agree. Probably the only must have picks for mine would all be hindsight based. Cripps, Rowell and Ziebell probably stand out the most to me if they all hit the high end of their potential ranges I don't think you'll be able to close the gaps on them if you don't start them given their popularity and potential.
Having said that, it's very easy to construct the naysayer side for why all/any of them wont hit those levels and in that scenario then they're either harmless or even positives to not start.
Having said that, it's very easy to construct the naysayer side for why all/any of them wont hit those levels and in that scenario then they're either harmless or even positives to not start.
I'm going to say no. That was my opinion before tonight's game as well.
To do the Slingshot properly, you are looking for a well overpriced player, that you trade him, and a fat Cow, or Stepping Stone out, and turn them into two Prems. I can't see Docherty's value hitting the heights that will allow you to do that.
If you are running rich with trades come his bye, he might be a candidate to trade around his bye, and turn him into a Round 12 player.
To do the Slingshot properly, you are looking for a well overpriced player, that you trade him, and a fat Cow, or Stepping Stone out, and turn them into two Prems. I can't see Docherty's value hitting the heights that will allow you to do that.
If you are running rich with trades come his bye, he might be a candidate to trade around his bye, and turn him into a Round 12 player.
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 358
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 358
I've used 2019 data because I couldn't be bothered adjusting for the shorter games. I also just compared total disposals as I thought that would give us a better indication than just ruckmen disposals given the small sample size.
So here are the averages per game for 2019 vs. 2021 Round 1...
HITOUTS
2019 Avg: 38.6 per team
2021 R1 Avg: 31.6 per team
TACKLES
2019 Avg: 62.6 per team
2021 R1 Avg: 51.9 per team
DISPOSALS
2019 Avg: 370.7 per team
2021 R1 Avg: 365.3 per team
So in 2019 the average game had 77.2 hitouts compared to 63.2 in Round 1.
And in 2019 the average game had 125.2 Tackles compared to 103.8 in Round 1.
So here are the averages per game for 2019 vs. 2021 Round 1...
HITOUTS
2019 Avg: 38.6 per team
2021 R1 Avg: 31.6 per team
TACKLES
2019 Avg: 62.6 per team
2021 R1 Avg: 51.9 per team
DISPOSALS
2019 Avg: 370.7 per team
2021 R1 Avg: 365.3 per team
So in 2019 the average game had 77.2 hitouts compared to 63.2 in Round 1.
And in 2019 the average game had 125.2 Tackles compared to 103.8 in Round 1.
Hey TommyGobbler,
the site I'd use for that information is: www.afltables.com
You mention the small sample size, and that is a huge problem here. We are only 4-5% of the way through the season, and you want to compare it with a full seasons data. I think that's risky to do, even with 3 Rounds under our belt.
Let's look at some data anyway.
That's some raw data, going back to 2018. One way to compare it, is not reduce it to acts/minute, but acts/another act. ie let's look at those first 6 stats, and see how often they happen per HitOut.
We can see the number of Disposals/HitOut has climbed 15% or more. This tells us there is more "play" between stoppages, so far this season. CP's/HO is up 10% ish, but the CPR is basically the same, as is the Tackles/HitOut. Goals/HitOut is up a whopping 30%, but the Goals/Qtr is pretty much at the 2018 level.
I think the last 3 items in this table are also very telling, if you are willing to take one Rounds data as meaningful (I'm not.)
Stoppages/Qtr are down 25%. This would partly be because the umpires have been more willing to pay Free Kicks. From 2018 to 2020, when the umpires made a decision it was roughly 55% Ball Up, 45% Free Kick. In the Round played this year it was 45% Ball Up, 55% Free Kick. This also is shown in the high Frees/Qtr number. Looking at the Frees/HO in those 4 seasons it is: 2018 = 0.53, 2019 = 0.49, 2020 = 0.54, 2021 = 0.69!!!!
We can see that most of these things would be detrimantal Rucks in SC, especially that last one, which means there were less repeat Stoppages this Round just gone, than there was in recent seasons.
I emphasise, this cannot be taken as a trend, and we need a lot more data, before we start using it to make or influence decisions.
the site I'd use for that information is: www.afltables.com
You mention the small sample size, and that is a huge problem here. We are only 4-5% of the way through the season, and you want to compare it with a full seasons data. I think that's risky to do, even with 3 Rounds under our belt.
Let's look at some data anyway.
That's some raw data, going back to 2018. One way to compare it, is not reduce it to acts/minute, but acts/another act. ie let's look at those first 6 stats, and see how often they happen per HitOut.
We can see the number of Disposals/HitOut has climbed 15% or more. This tells us there is more "play" between stoppages, so far this season. CP's/HO is up 10% ish, but the CPR is basically the same, as is the Tackles/HitOut. Goals/HitOut is up a whopping 30%, but the Goals/Qtr is pretty much at the 2018 level.
I think the last 3 items in this table are also very telling, if you are willing to take one Rounds data as meaningful (I'm not.)
Stoppages/Qtr are down 25%. This would partly be because the umpires have been more willing to pay Free Kicks. From 2018 to 2020, when the umpires made a decision it was roughly 55% Ball Up, 45% Free Kick. In the Round played this year it was 45% Ball Up, 55% Free Kick. This also is shown in the high Frees/Qtr number. Looking at the Frees/HO in those 4 seasons it is: 2018 = 0.53, 2019 = 0.49, 2020 = 0.54, 2021 = 0.69!!!!
We can see that most of these things would be detrimantal Rucks in SC, especially that last one, which means there were less repeat Stoppages this Round just gone, than there was in recent seasons.
I emphasise, this cannot be taken as a trend, and we need a lot more data, before we start using it to make or influence decisions.
Hi Rowsus,
With the Dangerfield suspension (and because I am in a very boring townhall), I tried to do a rough exercise to think about the point gain vs the cost of the trade.
Just did some simple scenarios assuming Dangerfield can potentially be viable for loophooling VC/C and / or rookie scores rd 3, 4, but not rd 2 (I understand Dow / Henry / Grundy may be possible in rd 2, but neglected this for the purposes of the exercise).
It depends on assumptions on replacement premo vs replacement rookie and / or potential VC loop activation bonus, so I looked at a couple of scenarios and subscenarios. They're all below, various grades of optimistic and pessimistic outcomes on both fronts.
But the outcome for me is a likely point gain somewhere around the 110 - 130 mark (under my assumptions, assuming methodology OK)
Given the value of a trade varies and this one has a more limited term over which you can benefit (three weeks), how does it stack up against conserving the trade? People tend to be arguing that because you can do it without mucking up your upgrade cadence, it is a must trade, just thought it would be interesting to actually think it through.
With the Dangerfield suspension (and because I am in a very boring townhall), I tried to do a rough exercise to think about the point gain vs the cost of the trade.
Just did some simple scenarios assuming Dangerfield can potentially be viable for loophooling VC/C and / or rookie scores rd 3, 4, but not rd 2 (I understand Dow / Henry / Grundy may be possible in rd 2, but neglected this for the purposes of the exercise).
It depends on assumptions on replacement premo vs replacement rookie and / or potential VC loop activation bonus, so I looked at a couple of scenarios and subscenarios. They're all below, various grades of optimistic and pessimistic outcomes on both fronts.
But the outcome for me is a likely point gain somewhere around the 110 - 130 mark (under my assumptions, assuming methodology OK)
Given the value of a trade varies and this one has a more limited term over which you can benefit (three weeks), how does it stack up against conserving the trade? People tend to be arguing that because you can do it without mucking up your upgrade cadence, it is a must trade, just thought it would be interesting to actually think it through.
Hi gutsroy,
nice work, as usual, and I think your summation is pretty close to the mark. I have been running a similar exercise through my head, since the incident occured. I actually came up with a 3 week scenario being around the 150 mark, which is in the ballpark of your bottom Mitchell figure. Let's split the difference, and call it 140.
Now put the whole thing aside, and imagine this scenario.
If VS (the people who run SC) offered you 140 points to sacrifice one of your trades this week, would you take it?
The simple answer is, you'd be crazy to take it! It's not full value for an early trade, and it's a lost opportunity that potentially reaps a lot more than 140 points, at some future point in the season.
The counter argument to this is two fold.
If you are someone who is cautious with your trades, and don't usually get yourself down to 2 left by Round 18 or 19, you can probably afford throw a trade at this situation. Of course, that statement is counter-intuitive, because the really cautious traders are probably a good chance to hold Dangerfield anyway.
Secondly, the risk of holding him has a double jeopardy attached. If you hold him through these 3 weeks, and injury/suspension causes him to miss another 2 or 3 weeks or more, you have been further anchored. Yes, you can trade him at this second occurence, but undoubtedly those that trade him now would hold a big advantage over you. Dangerfield has only missed 6 games in the past 10 seasons, prior to these 3 games, so the odds are on your side, that he gets through this season with 18 or 19 games. Against that, he's pretty much 31 now, so is more open to niggles and problems. To my mind, if you hold him, anymore than 2 more missed games between Rounds 5 and 23, and you've lost on the decision.
It's this 2nd part that is weighing on me most heavily, in my hold or trade thinking.
Two weeks, or four weeks, were easy decisions in my mind. Three weeks feels damned if you do, damned if you don't.
nice work, as usual, and I think your summation is pretty close to the mark. I have been running a similar exercise through my head, since the incident occured. I actually came up with a 3 week scenario being around the 150 mark, which is in the ballpark of your bottom Mitchell figure. Let's split the difference, and call it 140.
Now put the whole thing aside, and imagine this scenario.
If VS (the people who run SC) offered you 140 points to sacrifice one of your trades this week, would you take it?
The simple answer is, you'd be crazy to take it! It's not full value for an early trade, and it's a lost opportunity that potentially reaps a lot more than 140 points, at some future point in the season.
The counter argument to this is two fold.
If you are someone who is cautious with your trades, and don't usually get yourself down to 2 left by Round 18 or 19, you can probably afford throw a trade at this situation. Of course, that statement is counter-intuitive, because the really cautious traders are probably a good chance to hold Dangerfield anyway.
Secondly, the risk of holding him has a double jeopardy attached. If you hold him through these 3 weeks, and injury/suspension causes him to miss another 2 or 3 weeks or more, you have been further anchored. Yes, you can trade him at this second occurence, but undoubtedly those that trade him now would hold a big advantage over you. Dangerfield has only missed 6 games in the past 10 seasons, prior to these 3 games, so the odds are on your side, that he gets through this season with 18 or 19 games. Against that, he's pretty much 31 now, so is more open to niggles and problems. To my mind, if you hold him, anymore than 2 more missed games between Rounds 5 and 23, and you've lost on the decision.
It's this 2nd part that is weighing on me most heavily, in my hold or trade thinking.
Two weeks, or four weeks, were easy decisions in my mind. Three weeks feels damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Thanks Rowsus, always enjoy the logic you apply to your answers. As a little addenda, it is widely known that Geelong will be resting their players throughout the year. I was in a dilemma before round 1 as to whether I should start Danger because of this, your analysis has solidified my decision to trade him. Cheers.
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,312
- Likes
- 31,158
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Throw in the fact he’ll have already had a 3 week rest with this suspension, can’t see Dangerfield being one to be rested throughout the remainder of the season.
Even with the talk around the Cats resting players, my thoughts throughout the preseason were that Dangerfield would be one who wouldn’t get rested. Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, rotation of their rucks as they do always, maybe Higgins and Smith for a week just to freshen up. But not Danger for mine.
Even with the talk around the Cats resting players, my thoughts throughout the preseason were that Dangerfield would be one who wouldn’t get rested. Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, rotation of their rucks as they do always, maybe Higgins and Smith for a week just to freshen up. But not Danger for mine.
- Status